Demand-avoid-withdraw processes in adolescent dating aggression.

We conducted an observational study of a collection of interactive processes known as "demand-withdraw" in relation to adolescent dating aggression. Couples (N = 209) aged 14-18 years participated in a challenging observational laboratory assessment to measure demands (i.e., pressures for a change), as well as demand → partner withdraw and demand → partner avoid sequences. Actor and partner effects were disentangled via dyadic data analyses. The results indicated a fairly consistent pattern in which demand → withdraw and demand → avoid sequences led by either partner were positively associated with both partners' physical and psychological aggression (measured via a dual informant questionnaire method). Further, higher quality demands (i.e., pressures for change that were specific and encouraged both members of the dyad to increase a given behavior) were inversely associated with aggression. Yet, all of the above associations were attenuated to the point of statistical nonsignificance after controlling for hostility. These results suggest two primary possibilities. The associations of demand → withdraw and demand → avoid sequences with dating aggression may be spurious, with the sequences merely markers for hostility, a known correlate of dating aggression. Alternatively, hostility may mediate the relations of demand → withdraw and demand → avoid sequences with dating aggression. Further research is required to test these competing explanations. Implications for preventive intervention are discussed.

Does Observed Conflict Recovery Play a Role in Adolescent Dating Aggression?

In a study of conflict recovery and adolescent dating aggression, 14- to 18-year-old couples (N = 209 dyads) participated in a 1-hr observational assessment. Negative behavior was observed during conflict-evoking "hot" tasks and in a "cooldown" task. Physical and psychological dating aggression were assessed via questionnaires. Negative behavior measured in the cooldown task was not associated with dating aggression after controlling for carryover effects of negativity from the hot to cooldown tasks. Moreover, cooldown negativity moderated the associations of hot task negativity and dating aggression. Actor and partner effects were disentangled via dyadic data analyses. Given the paucity of observational studies of dating aggression, our findings are an important contribution to the literature and in need of replication and extension.